NOW TARPLEY HAS A GO AT RUSSELL BRAND

In his latest World Crisis Radio, Webster Tarpley has had a surprising go at Russell Brand, accusing Brand of being part of another limited hangout operation, pushing spirituality while saying nothing about JFK or anything else of any political importance.

Readers will know that I have defended Brand against attacks from warmongers like Nick Cohen and privileged establishment hacks like Quentin Letts. Such media personalities had a go at Brand because Brand called for a revolution, not because of the other call not to vote.

Brand has his own unique brand, Brand Brand, that has given him a large following on Twitter, over 7 million, placing him just outside the Top 100 by number of followers. Anyone who takes a look at that list of Twitter accounts should take note of what those people or organisations do or say. Celebrities with approximately the same number of followers of Brand are:
Tom Hanks;
Lindsay Lohan;
Wayne Rooney;
Zac Efron.

How many of these are calling for revolution? None, as far as I can see.

The other limited hangout ops, such as Snowden, were brought to our attention by the establishment. Brand was asked to guest edit The New Statesman, which is edited by his (former?) girlfriend Jemima Khan of the Goldsmith family. Jemima recently produced a video about drone strikes in Pakistan which exposed the horror of such strikes. She is the daughter of Sir James Goldsmith, and the sister of Zac Goldmsith, MP for Richmond Park, who was surprisingly on Max Keiser's show recently. Zac recently married into the Rothschild banking family.

So it is possible, but I doubt (at the moment) that Brand is part of another limited hangout. And if he is, then what is its purpose? I cannot see one. But I may be wrong.

No. At the moment I believe that Brand is different. I believe that he has had a road to Damascus conversion of some kind, but his is genuine. I was disappointed that he said nothing about the war on Syria in August as The Marsten House prepared to vote on WW3...but I assume he was too occupied by his tour.

But 1776 was a revolution.

And regarding The American Revolution, two things have not yet been explained to my satisfaction:
1. why is there an inverted, incomplete, irregular pentagram directly north of, and pointing down into, The White House?
2. Barings are alleged to be at the heart of The Brutish Empire, even at one point running the British East India Company. So why did Barings have such a strong relationship with the President of The Bank of North America and The Bank of The United States, Thomas Willing? Indeed, why was the neutral Willing given that job, considering he was from the notoriously Anglophile Shippen family? And why did Barings assist Nicholas Biddle by giving The Second Bank of The United States huge lines of credit in times of trouble, when denying such huge lines of credit would have destroyed The United States, which The Brutish Empire was supposed to want? Is this why control of the USA and The Second Bank of The United States was handed to the Rothschilds after British agent Andrew Jackson had destroyed the bank?